The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police is concerned about the negative impact on public safety that is likely to result if Illinois Senate Bill 3411 (SB 3411) is passed.

Obvious money grubbing is obvious.

While law enforcement executives strongly agree with eliminating the imposition of arbitrary traffic ticket quotas, the bill would also eliminate vital data-driven performance measures used to assist in the performance appraisal of police officers. Under the provisions of this bill, Illinois would stand to lose millions of dollars in federal highway traffic safety funding for DUI saturation patrols,restraint enforcement details and speed reduction campaigns.

If the bill passes, for example, an officer who refuses to make DUI arrests or who doesn't write a ticket to a motorist for passing a stopped school bus could not be disciplined or have it documented in their performance evaluation.

You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then. Here's a tip: you can still collect data without requiring cops to fulfill arbitrary quotas so you can justify your existence.

SB 3411 would intrude on the management rights of local law enforcement executives to decide what is in their communities' best interests. Police Chiefs would lose their means to properly supervise officers using objective data that demonstrates that officers are meeting the expectations set by our communities.

I'll tell you what's in your best interests. Learning how to do proper police work.

bdub77:The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police is concerned about the negative impact on public safety that is likely to result if Illinois Senate Bill 3411 (SB 3411) is passed.

Obvious money grubbing is obvious.

While law enforcement executives strongly agree with eliminating the imposition of arbitrary traffic ticket quotas, the bill would also eliminate vital data-driven performance measures used to assist in the performance appraisal of police officers. Under the provisions of this bill, Illinois would stand to lose millions of dollars in federal highway traffic safety funding for DUI saturation patrols,restraint enforcement details and speed reduction campaigns.

If the bill passes, for example, an officer who refuses to make DUI arrests or who doesn't write a ticket to a motorist for passing a stopped school bus could not be disciplined or have it documented in their performance evaluation.

You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then. Here's a tip: you can still collect data without requiring cops to fulfill arbitrary quotas so you can justify your existence.

SB 3411 would intrude on the management rights of local law enforcement executives to decide what is in their communities' best interests. Police Chiefs would lose their means to properly supervise officers using objective data that demonstrates that officers are meeting the expectations set by our communities.

I'll tell you what's in your best interests. Learning how to do proper police work.

bdub77:The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police is concerned about the negative impact on public safety that is likely to result if Illinois Senate Bill 3411 (SB 3411) is passed.

Obvious money grubbing is obvious.

I wonder if they have a cost benefit analysis backed with reliable data to make this claim, or if they are just talking out their ass?

For some reason whenever law enforcement talks about public safety, I somehow feel less secure...probably due to the fact I'm much more likely to be pulled over for a bogus reason than mugged or be in an accident on any given day.

The Tennessee Supreme Court already banned them in Tennessee, finding that such quotas violate a driver's constitutional right to a presumption of innocence. At least, I believe that was their reasoning. I know several other states have done the same in their supreme courts. Does this mean that those states can not receive Federal Grants, or are they excepted from the ticket quota portion of the law?

bdub77:You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then.

The one thing I quibble with is this line. Cops are not - nor should they be - required to enforce every infraction they encounter. Every speeding stop shouldn't get a ticket. Every noise violation shouldn't require a citation, etc. Discretionary enforcement of many ordinances is a good thing, provided when they DO enforce it, it's a real and evidence-based infraction.

Now, that selective enforcement shouldn't be held against an officer, and they need to find ways to track how well they are monitoring activities and keep that separate from how harshly citations are delivered. In an ideal enforcement world, an officer would exercise some level of compassion when deciding whether to write a citation. They weigh the situation, and make a judgement based on all of the surrounding factors.

Most officers do this, and I hate to think they're being punished because they pull you over for doing 45 in a 35 and decide that the minor delay and scare was enough to discourage you from doing it again. "Not tolerance" should never be the policy. Doubly so if it's to fill a financial requirement of their job.

Khellendros:bdub77: You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then.

The one thing I quibble with is this line. Cops are not - nor should they be - required to enforce every infraction they encounter. Every speeding stop shouldn't get a ticket. Every noise violation shouldn't require a citation, etc. Discretionary enforcement of many ordinances is a good thing, provided when they DO enforce it, it's a real and evidence-based infraction.

Now, that selective enforcement shouldn't be held against an officer, and they need to find ways to track how well they are monitoring activities and keep that separate from how harshly citations are delivered. In an ideal enforcement world, an officer would exercise some level of compassion when deciding whether to write a citation. They weigh the situation, and make a judgement based on all of the surrounding factors.

Most officers do this, and I hate to think they're being punished because they pull you over for doing 45 in a 35 and decide that the minor delay and scare was enough to discourage you from doing it again. "Not tolerance" should never be the policy. Doubly so if it's to fill a financial requirement of their job.

I work in a 911 call center. It's mandated that at least 90% of all inbound 911 calls to any agency be answered within 10 seconds. Every month, we get a report on our individual "stats" which include our personal percentage of calls answered within 10 seconds. We receive counseling if we fall below that 90% standard. Have you found the error in this methodology yet?

If not, consider this: If after I'm done being busy with radio traffic or another call, I see an inbound 911 call that has been ringing for 10 seconds or longer, what incentive to I have to answer it verses letting someone else answer it? What incentive does anyone have in answering a call that has slipped by and rang for 10 seconds or longer? Should it be the person that sacrifices their own stats to answer these calls get the reprimand for answering it or the up-to 15 other operators that didn't answer that call? Should it be individuals, the entire shift, or management that receive the punishment for failing to maintain this standard?

The problem isn't metrics. The problem is that management tends to select the easiest metric to tally versus the most effective or the most beneficial.

When it comes to street cops, the easiest metric to tally is how many tickets they write (or with some agencies, how many arrests they make). This is the metric that the general population has an issue with. As far as I can tell, there is no metric that can gauge the effectiveness of cops. The entire agency can tally how many crimes are reported and compare that over time to discover if crime is up or down, but that doesn't translate to specific individuals. A cop could bust his ass and make a difference, or a cop could sit on his ass while the crime rate goes down for other external reasons and they'd both appear to be equally effective.

Exactly. That's the other problem - police units shouldn't be funding themselves through citations. Ever. In fact, there should be no advantage to them based on revenue stream (or lack there of) due to enforcement. Not a dime of their budget, including pay, bonuses, gear, etc should ever be based on, or come from, citation revenue.

bdub77:The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police is concerned about the negative impact on public safety that is likely to result if Illinois Senate Bill 3411 (SB 3411) is passed.

Obvious money grubbing is obvious.

While law enforcement executives strongly agree with eliminating the imposition of arbitrary traffic ticket quotas, the bill would also eliminate vital data-driven performance measures used to assist in the performance appraisal of police officers. Under the provisions of this bill, Illinois would stand to lose millions of dollars in federal highway traffic safety funding for DUI saturation patrols,restraint enforcement details and speed reduction campaigns.

If the bill passes, for example, an officer who refuses to make DUI arrests or who doesn't write a ticket to a motorist for passing a stopped school bus could not be disciplined or have it documented in their performance evaluation.

You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then. Here's a tip: you can still collect data without requiring cops to fulfill arbitrary quotas so you can justify your existence.

SB 3411 would intrude on the management rights of local law enforcement executives to decide what is in their communities' best interests. Police Chiefs would lose their means to properly supervise officers using objective data that demonstrates that officers are meeting the expectations set by our communities.

I'll tell you what's in your best interests. Learning how to do proper police work.

Its precious that you take this so personally. Did you get caught speeding or something?

WTFDYW:cgraves67: Well, give the ticket, but have the fine go to a state-level fund for road repairs rather than to the local department's budget. Deincentivise punishing people who aren't harming anyone.

I like that idea. A LOT.

Isn't this already the case. I got a ticket a few years back, and at the traffic school (or whatever it's called) the officer let offenders ask questions. One asked where the ticket money went to. The officer showed the breakdown, and the percent going to the town was less than 5%. Most went to the state, and the county got a good chunk too.

/I don't remember the exact numbers/the ticket was given by town police on US 41; maybe the designation of the highway made a difference

GBB:The problem isn't metrics. The problem is that management tends to select the easiest metric to tally versus the most effective or the most beneficial.

When it comes to street cops, the easiest metric to tally is how many tickets they write (or with some agencies, how many arrests they make). This is the metric that the general population has an issue with. As far as I can tell, there is no metric that can gauge the effectiveness of cops. The entire agency can tally how many crimes are reported and compare that over time to discover if crime is up or down, but that doesn't translate to specific individuals. A cop could bust his ass and make a difference, or a cop could sit on his ass while the crime rate goes down for other external reasons and they'd both appear to be equally effective.

It's one of the oldest sayings in the disciple - metrics drive behaviors. Make sure you know what behaviors you want to drive. Every metric, no matter how cleverly designed, will bring about both good and bad behaviors. They key is understanding both sides, and picking the ones that drive your system in the best way, and attempt to mitigate the negative behaviors that come from it, not ignore them.

How about results based metrics. In 2011 police hid in the bushes and drove unmarked vehicles to catch speeders, causing distracted driving. In 2017 police drove brightly colored, well marked cars along the same stretch. The number of tickets dropped 45%, accidents dropped 12%, injuries 37% and property damage 18%. Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

Cheron:How about results based metrics. In 2011 police hid in the bushes and drove unmarked vehicles to catch speeders, causing distracted driving. In 2017 police drove brightly colored, well marked cars along the same stretch. The number of tickets dropped 45%, accidents dropped 12%, injuries 37% and property damage 18%. Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

Reminds me of a parking ticket I got in San Jose once. Ticket was for I think $40. On the back of the ticket it said that if you could get a parking enforcement person to sign that the ticket was in error, the amount would be reduced to $15. So yes, that means if they are willing to admit they made a mistake, you still owe them $15.

bdub77:The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police is concerned about the negative impact on public safety that is likely to result if Illinois Senate Bill 3411 (SB 3411) is passed.

Obvious money grubbing is obvious.

While law enforcement executives strongly agree with eliminating the imposition of arbitrary traffic ticket quotas, the bill would also eliminate vital data-driven performance measures used to assist in the performance appraisal of police officers. Under the provisions of this bill, Illinois would stand to lose millions of dollars in federal highway traffic safety funding for DUI saturation patrols,restraint enforcement details and speed reduction campaigns.

If the bill passes, for example, an officer who refuses to make DUI arrests or who doesn't write a ticket to a motorist for passing a stopped school bus could not be disciplined or have it documented in their performance evaluation.

You're implying you have cops in your organizations who don't enforce the law? Maybe they should be fired then. Here's a tip: you can still collect data without requiring cops to fulfill arbitrary quotas so you can justify your existence.

SB 3411 would intrude on the management rights of local law enforcement executives to decide what is in their communities' best interests. Police Chiefs would lose their means to properly supervise officers using objective data that demonstrates that officers are meeting the expectations set by our communities.

I'll tell you what's in your best interests. Learning how to do proper police work.

States vary a lot in how they split ticket money. In Massachusetts towns get most of the money except for speeding tickets, where states get most of the money. New York has a similar division of revenue. Connecticut towns get $10. California cities keep about a fifth of the total fine, with the rest going to state and county. In much of the country between the coasts local police will write you for a municipal code violation where the city keeps all the money.

skrame:WTFDYW: cgraves67: Well, give the ticket, but have the fine go to a state-level fund for road repairs rather than to the local department's budget. Deincentivise punishing people who aren't harming anyone.

I like that idea. A LOT.

Isn't this already the case. I got a ticket a few years back, and at the traffic school (or whatever it's called) the officer let offenders ask questions. One asked where the ticket money went to. The officer showed the breakdown, and the percent going to the town was less than 5%. Most went to the state, and the county got a good chunk too.

/I don't remember the exact numbers/the ticket was given by town police on US 41; maybe the designation of the highway made a difference

Even if the locals get just 5% of the total, it's still a financial incentive to write as many tickets as you possibly can.

I love how they cite "public safety" To pull over a speeder on the freeway. The sign says Emergency stopping only. Guess it's an emergency to lighten people's wallets. Standing around on the freeway hoping some innatentive ass doesn't run you over or causing gawker gridlock doesn't seem too safe to me. Farktards.

Cheron:How about results based metrics. In 2011 police hid in the bushes and drove unmarked vehicles to catch speeders, causing distracted driving. In 2017 police drove brightly colored, well marked cars along the same stretch. The number of tickets dropped 45%, accidents dropped 12%, injuries 37% and property damage 18%. Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

This. Safety should be the "metric" that's driving performance pay, not tickets.

That said, I lay off the accelerator every time I see a Crown Vic or a Dodge Charger, especially if it's dark out and you can't see the paint job.

Cheron:How about results based metrics. In 2011 police hid in the bushes and drove unmarked vehicles to catch speeders, causing distracted driving. In 2017 police drove brightly colored, well marked cars along the same stretch. The number of tickets dropped 45%, accidents dropped 12%, injuries 37% and property damage 18%. Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

skrame:sn't this already the case. I got a ticket a few years back, and at the traffic school (or whatever it's called) the officer let offenders ask questions. One asked where the ticket money went to. The officer showed the breakdown, and the percent going to the town was less than 5%. Most went to the state, and the county got a good chunk too.

Yeah, and of the amount that goes to the town, the share that goes to the officer who pulls you over is like 5 cents. So what? The town, county, state (and feds too) are linked financially and politically in all kinds of ways. Money and favors go up and down the chain.

When Vinny comes by your business every month to collect the Corleone family's protection money, does it make you feel better that only 1% goes directly in his pocket?

There are other data points that could be used to measure performance. The federal grant conditions don't tell you which ones, just that you have to use some kind of objective measure for performance instead of just taking the money and running.

Khellendros:Discretionary enforcement of many ordinances is a good thing

Only if the discretion goes your way. Otherwise it's a terrible thing. And there's not a lot of oversight in the situations you describe.

I agree with the concept that circumstances should influence what is or is not acceptable behavior; rules are fundamentally limited as a method to promote justice. But I'm not sure letting individual police offers decide when they do or do not want to fark with your life is a good idea.

Using performance metrics such as whether 90% of 911 calls are answered within 10 seconds to make disciplinary decisions directly is perilous. You need to learn why to be an effective manager. It always ticks me off to hear about numbers-obsessed managers like that. Even worse when a manager is being pressed into such a policy by company policy.

If I were a manager confronted with such a situation, I would look into what is delaying answering. Sure, it could be an employee goofing off, but it could also be a computer system that sucks or to high a workload for the number of people. Regardless of what is the cause, as a manager the problem would lie with me.

Ticket money should mostly go to traffic accident victim funds, highway safety programs and the like. The police and courts should only get a small amount of it, slightly above their costs for handling the tickets. "Speed traps" should be used only where there are actual dangers, such as places that look safe to drive at some speed but actually have something not obvious about them that makes the safe speed slower, such as high pedestrian counts or blind curves.

skrame:WTFDYW: cgraves67: Well, give the ticket, but have the fine go to a state-level fund for road repairs rather than to the local department's budget. Deincentivise punishing people who aren't harming anyone.

I like that idea. A LOT.

Isn't this already the case. I got a ticket a few years back, and at the traffic school (or whatever it's called) the officer let offenders ask questions. One asked where the ticket money went to. The officer showed the breakdown, and the percent going to the town was less than 5%. Most went to the state, and the county got a good chunk too.

/I don't remember the exact numbers/the ticket was given by town police on US 41; maybe the designation of the highway made a difference

Let me guess, he was somewhere just south of Terre Haute? I've never seen more speed traps on one stretch of road, highway or anything else, than I have on US 41 between TH and Evansville.

pat34us:pxlboy: Cheron: Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

When followed by a cop what are you paying attention to more, the road or your speedo?

The speedo unfortunately because they will pull you over if you are speeding and you will get a ticket in Ohio. I'd much rather be paying attention to the road for things like people not using turn signals, texting, tailgating, turning into the wrong lane, running red lights, failing to merge correctly all of which is actually dangerous and illegal but I can't because cops don't give a shiat about anything but speeding.

I still maintain that if you were a cop in Ohio and drove around in one of the cars with low profile lights and minimal markings you could write more tickets for the stuff I mentioned before and actually make the roads safer, although that would require effort instead of just sitting in your cruiser with your feet up until someone passes that magic number.

pat34us:pxlboy: Cheron: Sure you make less money but the result is people are safer and isn't that the goal, right?

When followed by a cop what are you paying attention to more, the road or your speedo?

Mostly the cop. I was once ticketed for doing 47 in a 45 in the middle of the night on an empty road. While that is technically over the limit, it's not something most cops bother with. Additionally, he was being very belligerent.

pxlboy:Mostly the cop. I was once ticketed for doing 47 in a 45 in the middle of the night on an empty road. While that is technically over the limit, it's not something most cops bother with. Additionally, he was being very belligerent.

Question for the Fark Lawyers and Fark Cops:

If the radar gun says 47 MPH, is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the car was going 46+ MPH?

redmid17:Let me guess, he was somewhere just south of Terre Haute? I've never seen more speed traps on one stretch of road, highway or anything else, than I have on US 41 between TH and Evansville.

Nope; St. John IN. There's a section by a school (whose main entrance isn't even on 41) right over an overpass that changes speeds for half a mile or so. They get people going downhill into a school zone.

It's Me Bender:When Vinny comes by your business every month to collect the Corleone family's protection money, does it make you feel better that only 1% goes directly in his pocket?

Wait, are you arguing that stopping people from breaking the law is comparable to mafia protection? How the hell can I reason with you?

dittybopper:Even if the locals get just 5% of the total, it's still a financial incentive to write as many tickets as you possibly can.

I suppose. I don't think many officers are going to shoot for a high number of tickets for $5-$15 each, unless that money was going straight to their pockets. Maybe some would though.

/anti-quota//not against ticket money going back to cops; they have to get paid somehow and speeding ticket money is no worse than my taxes or auctioning RayRay's impounded vehicle and house due to suspicion of resisting arrest.

profplump:Khellendros: Discretionary enforcement of many ordinances is a good thing

Only if the discretion goes your way. Otherwise it's a terrible thing. And there's not a lot of oversight in the situations you describe.

I agree with the concept that circumstances should influence what is or is not acceptable behavior; rules are fundamentally limited as a method to promote justice. But I'm not sure letting individual police offers decide when they do or do not want to fark with your life is a good idea.

I think you misinterpreted by post. Discretionary enforcement isn't about letting an officer screw with your life for doing nothing, it's about letting them decide to either enforce the penalty for something you actually did in violation of the law, or letting you off with a warning. I'm perfectly fine with them having that power, as it gives them the ability to not enforce every infraction to the maximum penalty under the law. In my example, discretionary enforcement can ONLY work in your favor.